Find trusted UAE tutors

Get better results with our exceptional online tutors

Our tutors aren't just subject experts

They’re also role models, recruited from the UK's top universities.

Choose your perfect tutor from the best of British tutors. Learn from tutors studying at Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, LSE, and a whole host of other top UK universities not just those in the UAE.

Personally interviewed tutors who are role models, mentors and subject specialists. They’ll build your confidence and guide you through those tricky topics, inspiring you to reach – and exceed – your goals

Enhanced learning with our specially designed lesson space allows you to experience high quality live tutorials, all from the comfort of your own home in the United Arab Emirates. All you need is a computer and an internet connection.

Recent experience

Proven exam success

Strong communication skills

Personally interviewed

A or A* in their subjects

Up-to-date syllabus knowledge

We ensure UAE students across the world achieve their goals

Laura has been terrific: over many sessions she has tutored our 12-year-old son, who because of his work with Laura has gained entry to the secondary school which all of us were hoping for. Laura is very thorough, patient, pro-active, and innovative in coming up with materials and approaches that have engaged our son. He has really enjoyed his sessions with her and has learned a great deal, with his writing having improved considerably. Many, many thanks!

Ping, Parent

Thanks to Matthew, A* achieved at GCSE, with all the worry taken out of the revision process. Excellent tutor; kind, patient, flexible and reliable and generous with his time. My son looked forward to his lessons!

Alison, Parent from Hertfordshire

Another 'top' tutorial in English Lang/Lit. Well planned and structured. Delivered with passion, engaging Kiran fully. Thank you

Kam, Parent

Barnaby has been a fantastic tutor to my son. His friendly approach and careful explanations have led to a noticeable increase in my son's enjoyment of and confidence with Maths.

Alison, Parent from Cumbria

After his first session with Benjamin, my son was totally inspired and enthusiastic about a subject he had previously struggled with.

Sharon , Parent from East Sussex

Professional, prepared, punctual. Pretty much the most perfect A* tutor you could hope for.

How is MyTutor different from school?

Lots of students say that the classes are too big in school, or that they don't have time to ask teachers after lessons. In my tutorials, we take time to explore things in a little in a bit more detail.

What is the cubed root of 0.1?

This is a question you may be asked in an Oxbridge interview for a course with any mathematical aspect. They are expecting you to find an answer without a calculator, but more importantly than finding the answer, they are looking for how you reach the answer. Firstly try thinking of how else you could think of 0.11/3. One way you could think of this is 11/3/101/3. Since 11/3 is 1, all you need to do is figure out the cubed root of 10. Without a calculator you can't get an exact number, but that's okay. Think about the cubed numbers you do know, 13 = 1, 23 = 8, 33 = 27. From this we can see that 101/3 must lie between 2 and 3, and much closer to 2 than 3. We could estimate that 101/3 is around 2.1. Now, all that's left to do is calculate 11/3/101/3 or 1/2.1. Again, we can't calculate 1/2.1 exactly, but we do know what something similar is - 1/2 = 0.5 and 1/3 = 0.333. So we know that 1/2.1 is less than 0.5, but not by a huge degree and is greater than 0.333. Again, we can estimate that 1/2.1 is close to 0.5 and is about 0.45. The true answer to 0.11/3 is 0.4641, so we're very close. In an Oxbridge interview, they don't expect you to know this off by heart or to be able to figure out the exact answer to 10 decimal places, they're much keener to see you talk through the process we just went to in order to see how you think.

Answered by
Josh M.

Studies Biological Natural Sciences at Cambridge

What are five key thoeries of language change?

Five of the most useful theories which are easily applied to exams questions are:

ROMAINE

Romaine states that language changes as a result of internal influences within the language e.g. the dictionary and new word formation, and external influences of social contexts e.g. class and gender.

RANDOM FLUCTUATION THOERY

HOCKETT

Language changes due to its instability because of random errors and events within the language system as a response of the ever-changing context of language use and its users e.g. why has ‘book’ become a synonym for ‘cool’ – predictive texting.

POSTAL

Language is as unpredictable as fashion and therefore changes in language are totally random.

KELLER

THE INVISIBLE HAND

In order to avoid misunderstandings, speakers use familiar, unambiguous synonyms and avoid difficult expression.

The ambiguous form falls into disuse and thus is not acquired by the following generation of speaker.

ZIPF

People have over time, preferred monosyllables as it is easier to communicate – we even short words that are polysyllabic e.g. disrespect – dis.

THEORY OF LEXICAL GAP

Words are invented, converted or borrowed in order to fill a gap in usage as well as a phonological gap in our language.

Answered by
Francesca W.

Studies Law at Durham

Outline 3 ways that representative democracy could be improved in the UK. (Party Politics 15 marks)

The first way that representative democracy could be improved in the UK is through digital elections. The introduction of digital voting would make the process much easier for the electorate and citizens of the country – they could vote from the comfort of their own home with a lack of fuss. This would create an effective and efficient process. As a result, this may cause more individuals to vote who do not typically have the time to do so in the average working week. Consequently, higher turnout thus means more people voting as opposed to the 60% range that is typically of the current political climate. More people voting thus means that the outcome of the election will ultimately represent the wishes of more of the electorate. This in turn, may create a more representative democracy.

In addition to digital voting, representative democracy may be further improved by the removal of party whips on key votes or votes in general within the UK. Although partisanship and party loyalty is key in order for the government to run, ultimately the role of MP’s in Parliament is to represent their constituents – the key individuals that elected them into their seat. As a result, removing the use of party whips who ensure that MP’s vote in line with their party leaders – as seen most recently within the Conservative party voting on air strikes in Syria – MP may be able to represent the views of their constituents more directly and effectively.

A third way in which representative democracy can be improved is perhaps through more frequent elections. At present, general elections and therefore the turnover of MP’s and the government in Parliament occurs every four years. Although arguably effective as it gives a governing party enough time to carry our their policies, a more frequent electoral system may perhaps improve representation. Four years allows MP’s and the government to (particularly within the first two years) make unfavorable decisions, as they are aware they are still safe in their position. More frequent elections may perhaps cause MP’s to take the views of their constituents more seriously and thus, attempt to make improvements accordingly, in order to save their seat. As seen in America, the use of elections to the House every two years, causes Congressmen to have the priority of ‘pork-barrel’ politics, as ultimately, if they do not carry out the wishes of their state, they will lose their seat. If this system was implemented in the UK, perhaps more representation would follow.

Answered by
Francesca W.

Studies Law at Durham

Liberalism is defined by the desire to minimise the role of the state. (Political Ideologies 45 Marks)

The role of the state is a debate that heavily divides the strands of liberalism. Most simply, the attitude of classical liberals in regards to the role of the state is that it should be minimal and non-interfering. Contrastingly, modern liberals have a more positive view of the state, seeing it as an enabler and facilitator for individual improvement. Nevertheless, despite their differences in the form that the state should take, both classical and modern liberals see the fundamental need for one. This reflects the difference between liberals and anarchists, in that they support the total obliteration of the state.

In regards to society and welfare, classical liberals believed there was need for a minimal state. Following the revolutions in America, France and England during the 1700’s classical liberals were fearful of an over powerful, tyrannical ruling government and therefore were concerned with the form the state would take. Nonetheless, classical liberals held a negative view of human nature in that without a state there would be chaos, as supported by philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who described ‘life in a state of nature would be nasty, brutish and short’. Thus, classical liberals saw a need for a state in order to protect individuals from one another. Furthermore, classical liberals are commitment to individualism and liberty and thus the rights of the individual, as reflected in the movement on Natural Rights theory, with Locke describing the need for the rights of ‘life liberty and property’. Because of this, classical liberals subscribed to the need for the state in order to protect the rights of citizens also. This relationship between the state and citizens can perhaps be described by come classical liberals as the ‘social contract’, enforced through the principle of constitutionalism, as reflected in the creation of the US constitution in which the Founding Fathers of Jefferson and Madison wanted to protect the rights of ‘life liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. Outside of this state that protects the rights of citizens and from one another, classical liberals believed there was no need for interference from the state – classical liberals saw individuals as ultimately concerned with making themselves happy, as utilitarian Jeremy Bentham described individuals as ‘utility maximisers’ and therefore, should have freedom from state intervention within their lives. In this way, the role of the state in terms of social welfare, can be categorized by classical liberals as a laissez faire style of governance.

Alongside their attitude of a non-interfering state within social policy, for classical liberals this also was the case for economics. Classical liberals widely supported economist, Adam Smith’s free market economic system which adopted an ‘invisible hand’ style – the market is able to regulate itself in encouraging competition and inevitably creating more jobs. For this reason, there is little need for state intervention and this perhaps, could cause a lack of economic success instead. This system of classical liberal, free market economics can be seen in the revival through neo-liberal economic management in Thatcher’s government of the 1970’s. This revival of classical liberal economics in the lack of need for an interfering state in economics is support by economists Friedman and Hayek, who regard state economic planning as inefficient due to the complexities of the market being out of the boundaries and too complex for ruling government – the market is the best regulator of itself. In this way, in terms of social policy and the economy, classical liberals view the state in a skeptical way, believing that it needs to be minimal and non-interfering.

Contrasting with the view of early liberals, modern liberals – as well as adopting the view that the state should protect the inalienable rights of the individual – take a more positive view of the state, seeing it as an enabler. Following the industrial revolution of the 1700’s in which the conditions for the poor got even worse and the conditions for the rich got even better, modern liberals began to see the view of the individual in a different way. Those such as TH Green began to discuss freedom in believing that there are more barriers on the individual than tyrannical government. In this way, they believed that an individual cannot be truly free if they do not have the tools to flourish as an individual and access their full potential – John Stuart Mill termed this as accessing ‘higher pleasures’. Thus, modern liberals began to view the state as a facilitator to enable individuals to achieve this, due to a social responsibility to do this. As opposed to adopting foundational equality in terms of rights as classical liberals had, modern liberals subscribed to the move towards equality of opportunity – every individual has the opportunities to reach their full potential away from social barriers. This positive attitude towards the state as an enabler, predominantly through educating, can be seen in the liberal policies of David Lloyd George and Asquith, as well as the publishing of the Beveridge Report, which recommended the introduction of the NHS and promoted education. In this way, modern liberals can be categorized as moving away from the desire to minimise the state and instead embrace the power of it.

In addition to the increase in the role of the state in regards to social policy, modern liberals supported this in terms of economics. Moving away from the free market economics supported by earlier liberals, later, an adoption of Keynesian economic management took place. Economist, Keynes proposed unlike the views of Hayek and Friedman, that governments could manage their economy by influence aggregate demand – increasing government spending on infrastructure projects to promote jobs and therefore increase the money going into the economy. In this way, government are able to manipulate their economies to improve the stability of the country. This modern liberal view of Keynesian economics can be seen in the interventionist policies following the Great Depression and Wall Street Crash, in Roosevelt’s New Deal in America. In this way, liberalism cannot wholly be defined by the desire to minimise the state, due to the modern liberal support of state intervention in economics.

Along with the view of modern liberals that the state is an enabler to promote equality of opportunity and therefore allow individuals to access their full potential, some later liberals took this even further, by believing the state could also help to improve equality of outcome. In the 1970’s Rawls began to argue that even with equality of opportunity, true meritocracy is a myth in that there is too much structural inequality for individuals to achieve what they deserve and have the skills for. In this way, he believed many individuals could not truly progress and due to the liberal commitment to individualism, believed in a need for greater equality – engineered by the state. He justified this through the theory of the ‘original position’ in that he argued that if given the choice, individuals would rather greater equality, than the risk of being at the lower end of a highly divisive society. This increase in equality, Rawls believed could be engineered by the state, through the use of policies such as progressive taxation. However, unlike socialists, liberals such as Rawls did not support total state intervention and believed in some forms of equality – in giving incentive and benefitting the poor. This perhaps reflect the vast movement of liberal view of the state, in that Rawls supported a much more interventionist state than classical liberals, and therefore liberalism cannot fully be defined by the need to minimise the state.

There is much support for the belief that liberalism is defined by the desire to minimise the state, most prominently due to the classical liberal adoption of a laissez faire style of social governance and free market economics. However, due to the movement of modern liberals towards a more enabling state both in economics and social policy, and even further in the views of later liberals such as Rawls, it would be inaccurate in to believe that the liberal philosophy can be truly defined by this, due to the increase in the role of the state.

Answered by
Francesca W.

Studies Law at Durham

How effective are the checks and balances between the three branches of federal government? (US 45 marks)

When answering this question it is important to define and outline what it means to be ‘effective’ and therefore what the goals of the checks and balances were when put in place. When the constitution was written in 1787, the Founding Fathers had a strong desire for ‘co-operation and compromise’ amongst the separate institutions of government. Furthermore, in order to deem the checks and balances as ‘effective’, they need to successfully ensure fluidity of decisions, allowing all branches to work together, without one dominating.

The first way in which the checks and balances can be seen as effective is through the various ways in which the Legislature check the Executive, while still however allowing for the Executive to balance this. Due to the intense fear of a tyrannical ruler, due to the previous tyranny of King George, which many Americans had previously faced, the constitution was formulated in a way in which the people held much power through Congress (democratic rule), while still having a federal nature. Furthermore, there are an array of ways in which Legislature checks the Executive, most of which taking an ‘approval’ role – the Legislature have the ability to override the veto power of the Presidents, as in 2008 when Congress overrode President Bush’s veto on Medicare Reforms of protecting a pay cut for doctors. Similarly, Congress also has the ability to accuse of impeachment, with Senate holding the ability to run a trial, such as in the case of Johnson, in 1968. In this way, along with their ability to confirm appointments and various other powers, Congress is able to not only approve the actions of the Executive, but also scrutinize where necessary. Despite this power of the Legislature, the Executive also is able to balance these checks, in order to ensure the prevention of the domination of one branch – although needs the approval of Legislature, the President is the one to submit the budget, along with appoint judges and senior members of the Executive branch and setting the Agenda in the State of Union address. Along with the dominant checking and balancing of the Legislature and Executive on one another, the Judiciary, as an independent institution, is able to ensure that in an event of trying to manipulate one another, the actions of both other branches is deemed constitutional; they do this by the process of judicial review, as in the Hamdi case of 2004, in which it was declared that American citizens had their constitutional right to a fair trial, even if being tried as an enemy in combat. Thus displaying, the way in which the separate branches, along with the particularly independent nature of Judiciary, allows for ‘effective’ checks and balances.

However, despite the positive effect that the vast checks of the Legislature and the Executive have, the ‘effectiveness’ of these is perhaps questionable, due to the fact that these checks and balances are limited in how much they are used – despite the President having the power of veto, he has only used this 4 times since 2011, displays limited use. By the same token, the power of Congress to override this veto is always scarcely used – Roosevelt vetoed legislation 635 times, yet was only overridden only 9 times. Furthermore, the power of accusation of impeachment is also somewhat ineffective, in that only 3 previous Presidents have been accused of impeachment (Nixon, Johnson and Clinton) with two being acquitted (Clinton and Johnson) along with the resignation of Nixon before potentially losing position. Furthermore, not only is there a lack of use, but also a lack of effective outcome of this power. The limitations of the way these powers are used, displays that although constitutionally, the checks and balances look to be effective, in practice the execution of them is less than sufficient.

Alongside this multitude of checks and balances to deliver effective scrutiny and approval, these powers also allow co-operation to take place efficiently within a divided government. In the advent of the party of Congress differing from that of the President, which is often the case (as with the Republican legislature and Democratic Presidency of Obama today), particularly in a President’s second term, the checks and balances of the constitution allow the separate powers to still work harmoniously, to maintain a steady level of activity. For example, the way in which Congress has the power to declare war, along with the ‘power of the purse’, yet the President has the power of Commander-in-Chief, displays that both institutions have to work together effectively, in order to ensure sufficient action is taken, in order to benefit the country as a whole. Furthermore, the way in which the President negotiates Treaties, which then have to be ratified by the legislature, displays that if effective governance wants to take place, co-operation is necessary. Furthermore, the purposeful co-operative nature of these checks and balances, forced the separate branches of government to do this.

Although this appears straightforward in theory – it would be thought that both branches, despite in a divided government being of separate parties, would aim for harmony to be effective – this dependence upon one another, can lead to the most difficult hindrance of the constitutional separation of powers: gridlock. When the two branches of the Executive and the Legislature are of differing parties, despite awareness that both are needed for effective governance, a defiance to co-operate with the opposing can often lead to nothing happening at all. This is gridlock, and what happened in Clinton’s Democrat Presidency in which the Republican Congress did not agree with his budget. As they are unable to give a compromise, Clinton was forced to shut down government departments, due to a lack of resource. Contrastingly, they ability of an undivided government, in which the party of both branches of government are the same, to pass through whatever they please is as much of an issue – if both branches are in total support of one another in a case of strong party allegiance, the checks and need to scrutinize will not be used and thus, leads to ineffective checks of the different branches of government. Furthermore, showing how this system means that both ends of the spectrum can lead to ineffective checks and balances.

The multitude of checks held by both the Legislature and the Executive, the independent and neutral nature of the Judiciary, alongside the way in which they allow for overcoming a divided government, provide sufficient evidence to suggest that the checks and balance of the US Constitution are effective in providing ‘co-operation and compromise’ as stressed by the Founding Fathers. However, the way in which these are limited in use in practice, along with the way they can lead to Gridlock or contrarily a lack of scrutiny, displays the way these checks are not necessarily fully effective. Thus in this way, suggesting that although effective in principle and somewhat in practice, the checks and balances of the US Constitution do not come without limits.

Answered by
Francesca W.

Studies Law at Durham

How do I structure an English essay?

Structuring your English essay to ensure that it flows well, your argument is clear and you answer the question can seem like a daunting task, but it is crucial you do this to ensure you receive a high mark and is equally something that can be made very simple if you follow a few basic rules.

1. Define your thesis / overall argument clearly in your introduction. You need to ensure that your overall argument is made clear from the beginning; this will help the reader understand your later points that supplement your position and help give your essay a direction.

2. Ensure each of your paragraphs further develops your argument. Your paragraphs need to flow and develop your argument further; this can be done by starting your paragraphs with a topic sentence that introduces your point at the beginning, then develop your point further bringing in relevant evidence/sources, before then using your final sentence to re-emphasise your point. You should also ensure that your paragraphs link nicely together and don't simply skip from point to point randomly.

3. Include criticism of your points but then explain why your argument is superior. You should develop critques for your point of view throughout your essay in order to show critical analysis and engagement with other lines of thought but should also go on to say why your argument is nonetheless superior to these.

4. Use relevant evidence from your sources, such as quotes. You should ensure you back up your points with strong and relevant evidence from your source. Quotes from the text are a great way to do this, historical context, symbolism and themes can also all be used further to help emphasise your points.

5. Finish on a high re-emphasising your points. Use your conclusion to re-emphasise your overall argument supplementing this with your strongest points from your paragraphs. Do not use it to introduce any new points or information and try to make the conlusion short, concise but powerful.

This is not an exhaustive list as to how to structure your essay but if you do follow these 5 tips it will certainly go a long way to help you clearly structure your English essay.

Sign up

Get in touch

Leave your contact details below and we will get back to you with more information

Your full name*

Email Address*

Organisation Name*

Your phone number*

Request sent

We have received your email and will be in contact soon.

MTW tutor guarantee

Every tutor on our site is from a top UK university and has been personally interviewed and ID checked. With over 7 applications for each tutor place, you can rest assured you’re getting the best.

As well as offering free tutor meetings, we guarantee every tutor who has yet to be reviewed on this site, no matter how much prior experience they have. Please let us know within 48 hours if you’re not completely satisfied and we’ll refund you in full.

Happy students

Every time a student and parent lets us know they have enjoyed a tutorial with a tutor, one 'happy student' is added to the tutor's profile.

mtw:mercury1:status:ok

Version details

Version:

3.26.0

Build:

b023f5b4f270

Time:

2016-12-05T16:44:39Z

Message sent

Your message has been sent and you'll receive an email to let you know when responds.
Tutors typically reply within 24 hours.